Why is the copy constructor not called?

Question

class MyClass
{
public:
  ~MyClass() {}
  MyClass():x(0), y(0){} //default constructor
  MyClass(int X, int Y):x(X), y(Y){} //user-defined constructor
  MyClass(cons         


        

Answer 1

The copy constructor may be elided in such a case.

Likewise with MyClass MyObj = MyClass( 1, 2 );.

And with

std::string str = "hello";

Such code has an implicit constructor call to convert the char* to a std::string.

std::string str = std::string( "hello" ); // same, written more verbosely

Without copy elision, the "easy" string initialization by assignment syntax would incur an additional deep copy. And that syntax is 99% equivalent to what you have.